Saturday, 5 January 2013
Imperial Winter Series Race 7
Race 7 (can it really be 7 already!?) saw a big 3rd cat field of 43 riders lining up on an exceptionally mild overcast January afternoon with the usual SW wind. The larger turnout meant that some were taking greater risks to move up the field but at least everybody managed to remain upright. We all stayed together the whole race though we strung out a bit for the prime. The Elites were on a bit of a go slow today and only caught us up right at the end of our race with just a couple of laps to go. Inevitably we then sprinted past them on the final bends up to the finish. I didn't much fancy sprinting past the other race so just rolled in at the back of the wrong bunch probably in last place.
The race was won by a convincing margin by Ken Buckley of AW Cycles who also won on Tuesday. I suspect there will be plenty looking to hold his wheel next week. We did 26.9 miles in 1:04:09 averaging 25.1 mph, my max 30.6 (during the prime, not the finish).
Friday, 4 January 2013
More victim blaming from my profession?
Updating my table of sentencing in fatal cases I came across this:
Both prosecution and defence debated whether Mr Warrington should have been on the A1 in the dark at 4am, but concluded that the law allowed him to be.
Mr Warrington had a rear light that could be seen some 200 metres away.
Rather a lot of reports of these tragic cases seem to have an at best superfluous discussion about the cyclist's entitlement to be on the road. The motorist's entitlement to use the road is always taken as granted.
Both prosecution and defence debated whether Mr Warrington should have been on the A1 in the dark at 4am, but concluded that the law allowed him to be.
Mr Warrington had a rear light that could be seen some 200 metres away.
Rather a lot of reports of these tragic cases seem to have an at best superfluous discussion about the cyclist's entitlement to be on the road. The motorist's entitlement to use the road is always taken as granted.
A petition you may wish to sign
C Frank is petitioning the Government to make the police take the close passing of cyclists by motorists more seriously. I agree with him and have signed his petition. My experience is that some police officers do take this problem seriously but many do not. My account here of a morning with the Metropolitan Police Cycle Task Force includes the defeatist sentiment expressed to me by a police sergeant that close passing was all too subjective to take any action.
It is very difficult to know how often close passing results in tragedy and I have a sneaking suspicion that when it does many motorists would prefer to claim they had not seen the cyclist than to admit that a close pass went wrong. Whatever the figures though, close passing is unquestionably precisely the sort of subjectively terrifying experience that drives a lot of potential cyclists off our roads.
It is very difficult to know how often close passing results in tragedy and I have a sneaking suspicion that when it does many motorists would prefer to claim they had not seen the cyclist than to admit that a close pass went wrong. Whatever the figures though, close passing is unquestionably precisely the sort of subjectively terrifying experience that drives a lot of potential cyclists off our roads.
Tuesday, 18 December 2012
Imperial Winter Series Race 3
A balmy 11 degrees but with a fairly stiff south-westerly wind and with the skies changing from bright to threatening as the race progressed and some light rain eventually appearing. The 3rd cat race was not that full, probably about 30 of us. At the start line Richard C requested a more exciting race than last week. I was sorry not to be able to oblige. For me it was just dipping my toe gently back into racing after 3 months recovering from a spill. Here I felt safe sitting in towards the back regaining trust. Far ahead there were some attempts to form a break with one group of six making some promising headway at one point into the wind on what is now the home straight. I was a bit over anxious about the final bends close to the finish and went into them last and crossed the line just behind the bunch. I was happy to have finished and that everybody remained upright. Objective over the coming weeks is simply to regain some confidence.
After I remembered to turn the Garmin on about a lap in, we did 25 miles in a smidgen over an hour. Average 24.7 mph.
Results and report should be here shortly
After I remembered to turn the Garmin on about a lap in, we did 25 miles in a smidgen over an hour. Average 24.7 mph.
Results and report should be here shortly
Friday, 14 December 2012
Legal Update R v Beiu; R v Aydogdu
This afternoon two juries in two separate London Crown Courts have delivered their verdicts in cases which have involved Defendants that have been (allegedly) responsible for causing death and very serious injury to two cyclists.
On 4th November 2011 Mary Bowers, a journalist with The Times, was struck down by a left turning lorry at a light controlled junction very close to her workplace in Wapping. The lorry was being driven by Petre Beiu. The evidence placed before the jury included that Ms Bowers was visible to be seen in front of the lorry for many seconds before he overtook her and turned left across her path; that Mr Beiu was talking on a hands free telephone at the time and that in the aftermath of the collision he jumped out of the cab leaving the handbrake off so that the lorry continued to roll over Ms Bowers. Ms Bowers sustained devastating injuries which are seriously underestimated by describing her brain injury as 'significant'.
The jury decided that Mr Beiu was not guilty of dangerous driving. They convicted him instead of careless driving - an offence which he had accepted, though the Judge had still left the jury with the option of acquitting on that charge as well.
Mr Beiu was fined £2,700 and banned from driving for (just!) 8 months.
On 6th August 2011 Sam Harding was riding his bicycle in a bus lane along Holloway Road. As he passed a parked car, Mr Aydogdu, opened the door (wide according to the prosecution and a crack according to the Defendant) into the path of Mr Harding who hit the door and then was struck by a bus. It transpires that Aydogdu had applied some reflective coating to his side windows which blocked 83% of the light. The jury this afternoon decided that Mr Aydogdu was not guilty of the manslaughter of Mr Harding.
Following on from the case of the Townend brothers, these cases must give rise to concerns over how seriously the average jury considers the obligation not to endanger cyclists. A jury reflects the society from which it is drawn and whilst cycling remains stuck at a modal share of 2% of journeys it is going to be an exceptional jury that contains even one regular cyclist. That should change, if and when the proportion of cyclists on the roads increases. However in rather a catch 22, the number of cyclists on the roads is inhibited by the apparently low value that the legal system appears sometimes to place on the value of the life of a human whilst cycling.
I commented at the time that I considered that the decision in the Townend case was perverse (the jury acquitting the Defendant of even causing death by careless driving); the verdict in the Bowers case is astonishing and to be honest the result in the Harding case was, to me, not unexpected.
In the Harding case it appears to me that tragically a combination of factors combined to result in the tragic outcome. First, Aydogdu's daft decision to coat his windows so as to restrict his ability to see out (and that of others to see in). Second, the pressure that cyclists often feel under to ride too close to the left. In February (after Mr Harding's tragedy) The Times, as a part of its campaign published a 'Guide to Safe Cycling' which included advice to cyclists to look in wingmirrors and windscreens of parked cars to see if anyone in the car might be about to open a door. NO! The correct advice is DO NOT RIDE IN THE DOOR ZONE. If for some extraordinary reason (narrow road, oncoming bus for example) you have to then slow to a walking pace. At the time I advised discarding the Times guide in favour of British Cycling's 'Effective Traffic Riding'. Nonetheless there is definite pressure remaining on cyclists and encouraged by most cycling 'infrastructure' that deters many of us from adopting the safest riding position in the centre of our lane. Third the opening of the car door which must have been done without careful observation even if the jury determined it was not gross negligence. Fourth the bus driver (though exculpated by the prosecution at Aydogdu's trial) should have been holding well back behind a cyclist or ought to have been giving him a car width's space if overtaking. I do not know the detail of the evidence but it seems to me surprising that a cyclist falling into the road would be run over by a bus if best driving practice was being followed. Sadly my experience commuting in London is that very often buses get much much too close. This tragedy illustrates why they (and others) must not do so.
It is important to recognize that the correct charging decisions were taken in each case. The fact of acquittal does not in any sense indicate that the bringing of the charges was not justified. Far too often I have had cause to complain in these pages that the appropriately serious charge was not pursued and it is only right to acknowledge that the police and CPS have been conscientiously doing the right thing in the cases I refer to above.
On 4th November 2011 Mary Bowers, a journalist with The Times, was struck down by a left turning lorry at a light controlled junction very close to her workplace in Wapping. The lorry was being driven by Petre Beiu. The evidence placed before the jury included that Ms Bowers was visible to be seen in front of the lorry for many seconds before he overtook her and turned left across her path; that Mr Beiu was talking on a hands free telephone at the time and that in the aftermath of the collision he jumped out of the cab leaving the handbrake off so that the lorry continued to roll over Ms Bowers. Ms Bowers sustained devastating injuries which are seriously underestimated by describing her brain injury as 'significant'.
The jury decided that Mr Beiu was not guilty of dangerous driving. They convicted him instead of careless driving - an offence which he had accepted, though the Judge had still left the jury with the option of acquitting on that charge as well.
Mr Beiu was fined £2,700 and banned from driving for (just!) 8 months.
On 6th August 2011 Sam Harding was riding his bicycle in a bus lane along Holloway Road. As he passed a parked car, Mr Aydogdu, opened the door (wide according to the prosecution and a crack according to the Defendant) into the path of Mr Harding who hit the door and then was struck by a bus. It transpires that Aydogdu had applied some reflective coating to his side windows which blocked 83% of the light. The jury this afternoon decided that Mr Aydogdu was not guilty of the manslaughter of Mr Harding.
Following on from the case of the Townend brothers, these cases must give rise to concerns over how seriously the average jury considers the obligation not to endanger cyclists. A jury reflects the society from which it is drawn and whilst cycling remains stuck at a modal share of 2% of journeys it is going to be an exceptional jury that contains even one regular cyclist. That should change, if and when the proportion of cyclists on the roads increases. However in rather a catch 22, the number of cyclists on the roads is inhibited by the apparently low value that the legal system appears sometimes to place on the value of the life of a human whilst cycling.
I commented at the time that I considered that the decision in the Townend case was perverse (the jury acquitting the Defendant of even causing death by careless driving); the verdict in the Bowers case is astonishing and to be honest the result in the Harding case was, to me, not unexpected.
In the Harding case it appears to me that tragically a combination of factors combined to result in the tragic outcome. First, Aydogdu's daft decision to coat his windows so as to restrict his ability to see out (and that of others to see in). Second, the pressure that cyclists often feel under to ride too close to the left. In February (after Mr Harding's tragedy) The Times, as a part of its campaign published a 'Guide to Safe Cycling' which included advice to cyclists to look in wingmirrors and windscreens of parked cars to see if anyone in the car might be about to open a door. NO! The correct advice is DO NOT RIDE IN THE DOOR ZONE. If for some extraordinary reason (narrow road, oncoming bus for example) you have to then slow to a walking pace. At the time I advised discarding the Times guide in favour of British Cycling's 'Effective Traffic Riding'. Nonetheless there is definite pressure remaining on cyclists and encouraged by most cycling 'infrastructure' that deters many of us from adopting the safest riding position in the centre of our lane. Third the opening of the car door which must have been done without careful observation even if the jury determined it was not gross negligence. Fourth the bus driver (though exculpated by the prosecution at Aydogdu's trial) should have been holding well back behind a cyclist or ought to have been giving him a car width's space if overtaking. I do not know the detail of the evidence but it seems to me surprising that a cyclist falling into the road would be run over by a bus if best driving practice was being followed. Sadly my experience commuting in London is that very often buses get much much too close. This tragedy illustrates why they (and others) must not do so.
It is important to recognize that the correct charging decisions were taken in each case. The fact of acquittal does not in any sense indicate that the bringing of the charges was not justified. Far too often I have had cause to complain in these pages that the appropriately serious charge was not pursued and it is only right to acknowledge that the police and CPS have been conscientiously doing the right thing in the cases I refer to above.
Thursday, 13 December 2012
Cycle Super Highway 9. A Response.
Last month, believing the plans for CSH9 to be out for consultation I submitted my observations.
I have today had a response from the Head of Transport at the London Borough of Hounslow. I reproduce it below followed by my response:
Sent: 13 December 2012 11:05
To: Martin Porter QC
Subject: RE: Cycle Superhighway 9
________________________________________
Chris Calvi-Freeman
Head of Transport
Regeneration, Economic Development & Environment Department
London Borough of Hounslow
Civic Centre, Lampton Road, Hounslow, TW3 4DN
And my response:
I have today had a response from the Head of Transport at the London Borough of Hounslow. I reproduce it below followed by my response:
Sent: 13 December 2012 11:05
To: Martin Porter QC
Subject: RE: Cycle Superhighway 9
Dear Mr Porter
Thank you for your email and its attachment.
This is merely an interim response as I am on leave from today,
returning early January.
The consultation process has not yet begun. Subsequent to the
Central Hounslow Area Forum report, TfL expressed a wish to consult along
the entire BCS9 route in a joined-up fashion – this is now likely to
happen in April 2013.
The Cycle Superhighways are targeted primarily at people who want
to cycle to work. They aim to get existing commuter cyclists to cycle
more, encourage leisure cyclists to start cycling into work and give new
cyclists the support and confidence they need to start. They are designed to
provide safer, faster, more direct and continuous routes between outer and
central London. As I am sure you will be aware, cyclists have many levels
of ability and have a range of needs and aspirations in terms of
infrastructure. It is unlikely that all of these can be completely met
with the provision of the cycle superhighway infrastructure but we will aim to
provide a step-change in facilities for the great majority.
Few cyclists would be able to match traffic speeds in outer London,
even in peak periods, unless they ignore red lights. Where there are long
peak-hour traffic queues, we sometimes have bus lanes, which provide excellent
cycling facilities. Even fewer cyclists would be able to match traffic
speeds in the off-peak, and of course even commuting cyclists may travel at
different times of the day. Facilities that allow cyclists to ride
alongside motor traffic and be safely overtaken by it (and “undertake” it when
the traffic is slower) should cater for the majority of cyclists needs. All the
outline designs are under review prior to consultation, and the plans presented
to the CHAF are clearly marked as draft and subject to further discussion.
In closing, I’d point out that my team and I are all keen and
experienced cyclists, of differing levels of fitness and ability. We are
doing our best to ensure that the design of the cycle superhighway through our
borough best meets all of our needs and those of our residents, workers and
those who cycle through our borough en route elsewhere.
Regards
________________________________________
Chris Calvi-Freeman
Head of Transport
Regeneration, Economic Development & Environment Department
London Borough of Hounslow
Civic Centre, Lampton Road, Hounslow, TW3 4DN
And my response:
From: Martin Porter QC
Sent: 13 December 2012 11:59
To: 'Chris Calvi-Freeman'
Subject: RE: Cycle Superhighway 9
Sent: 13 December 2012 11:59
To: 'Chris Calvi-Freeman'
Subject: RE: Cycle Superhighway 9
Dear Mr Calvi-Freeman,
Many thanks for your response
which as requested I shall treat as interim and I look forward to a more full
response in due course. Please let me know if I need to resubmit my
evidence for it to be taken into account when formal consultation takes place.
Although your response is
interim there are some points that I feel need to be challenged.
Most cyclists can match average
traffic speeds on the congested roads that lie between Hounslow and Central
London (i.e. the route of CSH9). I know this from personal
observation. I simply do not understand why you bring traffic lights into
this, as both cyclists and motorists have to stop at red signals. If
speed limits are introduced and enforced that will calm the peak speeds that
motorists reach as they accelerate into the next traffic queue. Traffic
lights can be phased to assist cyclists better than they presently do.
Second, a 1.5m lane is not a
facility that enables cyclists to ride safely alongside a stream of traffic
which includes many buses and HGVs for the reasons I have stated. You
appear to believe that if such facilities encourage cyclists to undertake
moving traffic that is a good thing. Let me assure you that is bad, not
good, for cyclist safety.
Third, you imply that although
the infrastructure you propose may not be helpful to me, it will assist others
with different needs and aspirations. I do not see that it will.
Many people wish to have segregated infrastructure where there is a physical
barrier between cyclists and motor traffic. For this to be worth doing it
has to be done very well (“Going Dutch”). The proposed plans with 1.5
metre wide lanes do nothing to distance motorised traffic from cyclists while
at the same time they make it harder to integrate properly with traffic in the
safest possible manner.
I am afraid I am sceptical that
your team’s experience as cyclists is a true substitute for seeking proper
advice from qualified cyclist instructors. I am hoping that all of
your team to whose experience you refer have at least completed Bikeability
level 3.
Let me assure you I am not
making these observations to be awkward. However as a taxpayer and a
cyclist I hate to see public money squandered on misconceived solutions that
actually make the position worse..
With best wishes
Martin Porter
Friday, 7 December 2012
My Response to All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group
My evidence to the APPCG is here.
I hesitate to publish it since it is a personal response based on my experiences and is intended to cover what I perceive to be a gap in The Times and associated campaigns. Segregation (especially if it comes with the assumption which most would make that the existing streets are for the segregated motorised, and not non-motorised, traffic) cannot it seems to me be the only answer for the foreseeable future. We need a civilising of our streets (and Highways bar Motorways) everywhere so that they are more pleasant and inviting places to cycle.
I hesitate to publish it since it is a personal response based on my experiences and is intended to cover what I perceive to be a gap in The Times and associated campaigns. Segregation (especially if it comes with the assumption which most would make that the existing streets are for the segregated motorised, and not non-motorised, traffic) cannot it seems to me be the only answer for the foreseeable future. We need a civilising of our streets (and Highways bar Motorways) everywhere so that they are more pleasant and inviting places to cycle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


